marvelfandomcom-20200222-history
Talk:Otto Octavius (Earth-616)
Can anybody cite any sources or references on Doc Ock's article please? It would be greatly appreciated, since this article mirrors wikipedia's far too well. The Robert: Your Idol (talk • • ) 21:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC) 02:30, January 28, 2010 (UTC) :It probably resembles the Wikipedia page because somebody might have copied it from there. But yeah, Im not really a big enough fan of Spider-Man to know much about Doc Ock, so cant help you here, sorry. --Johnnybravo44 04:19, February 8, 2010 (UTC) Profile Image Despite the recent events that have resulted in Octavius becoming Spider-Man, his profile image should remain one that depicts him as Doc Ock. The purpose of the image isn't to show off the most recent image of the character, but the most representative of that character. Despite the complete and total boococky that happened in the last issue of Amazing Spider-Man, Octavius is still best known for being Doctor Octopus, and the profile image should reflect that. LoveWaffle (talk) 07:49, December 20, 2012 (UTC) ::Profile images must show the current image of the character, I thought of that, but even if he's more well known as Doctor Octopus, he's currently Spider-Man. The same happened with Eddie Brock, he's more known as Venom but he was Toxin more recently. Norman Osborn has a image of his civilian identity though he was the Green Goblin for decades. That moment Steve Rogers left the shield to Bucky, we had a profile picture of him as Steve, not as Captain America. Same happened when five X-guys became Phoenix avatars. Even if it's temporary, it has to remain that way. But I think it would be better to change the image to a one less-"spoilerific". ::ADour, the ADour-tacular ADour (talk) 10:16, December 20, 2012 (UTC) :::Profile images must show the current image of the character, :::Could someone explain that to me why that's the policy, because it doesn't make any sense. LoveWaffle (talk) 13:13, December 20, 2012 (UTC) ::::Might be a little late but whatever. Since this is a wiki, it should provide up-to-date information. A profile pic of Doctor Octopus wouldn't reflect current events, and would be outdated. The people who come to this wiki will be looking for character information, and would leave thinking that Otto Ocatvius is still Dr. Octopus, when in fact he is not. Hope that's not too confusing.DegradingSeeker (talk) 21:48, January 10, 2013 (UTC) :::::Sooo should we change the Spider-Man profile image to a picture of a dying Doc Ock?Time Traveling Bunny (talk) 19:41, January 11, 2013 (UTC) :::::Just now seeing DegradingSeeker's comment, and that's...wrong. Wiki is an encyclopedia, not a news source (that's what I leave my blogs for), and as each page should be towards the most notable representation of the character. A profile pic of Spider-Man asserts that the character is best known as Spider-Man and Dr. Octopus. People who come to this wiki will be looking for character information on Dr. Octopus, not Spider-Man, and seeing the image of Spider-Man might turn people away. If you're looking for up-to-date information on the character, that's what the rest of the page is for. :::::LoveWaffle (talk) 20:07, January 11, 2013 (UTC) ::::::Bunny: Peter Parker is still in his body, so he's Spider-Man along Otto Octavius. I thought about changing his profile picture to that one of Doc Ock in the article before this was revealed, but decided to keep the Spider-Man image as an homage to the character. ::::::Waffle: Yes, this is an encyclopedia, an online encyclopedia in a modern world. Encyclopedias must be up-to-date, reason why "Otto Ocatvius (Earth-616)" must have a Spider-Man profile image, because he's now Spider-Man. And as far as I know it would help people who are trying to know more about "Doc Ock is now Spider-Man? I want to know moooreee!". It doesn't make sense to leave the main image as the only thing not up-to-date. Why wouldn't a pic of Doc Ock mislead them thinking "so... Doc Ock is not Spider-Man now?" after all, I don't think that someone would turn away immediately after seeing the Spider-Man picture, they know how to read the rest of the page. :::::::--ADour, the ADour-incible ADour (talk) 20:18, January 11, 2013 (UTC) It doesn't make sense to leave the main image as the only thing not up-to-date. Because it's a profile image, and a profile image should be something representative. Something you can look at and immediately identify who that character is. The up-to-date information, including pictures of Octavius as Spider-Man, belong in the character's history section. So if you want to know more about Doc Ock becoming Spider-Man, you go to the page for Dr. Octopus, see the nice little table of contents at the side, see "Becoming Spider-Man" or something of the sort, and click on it. LoveWaffle (talk) 20:28, January 11, 2013 (UTC) :"A profile image should be something representative". His current and talked-about-everyone representation is that of being Spider-Man. You could perfectly read the rest of the page and know about when he was Doc Ock, I don't think people are too stupid to see a Spider-Man picture and say "So, he'z not Doctor Octopuz as I thought... *close tab*". And it still doesn't make sense to leave everything but the profile image up-to-date. Is like putting a Ms. Marvel picture in Carol Danver's image just because she was Ms. Marvel for decadaes, doesn't make any sense. ::--ADour, the ADour-incible ADour (talk) 20:41, January 11, 2013 (UTC) :::Current, but not representative of the character. He's been Doc Ock for almost half a century (and has appeared in just about every Spider-Man related media as so), but has only been Spider-Man for a couple of weeks. And the comparison to Carol Danvers is unfair. While it was accompanied by a lot more than such, Carol Danvers leaving behind the Ms. Marvel identity and assuming the mantle Captain Marvel is aesthetically just a costume change. You can tell that's still Carol Danvers the same way you can tell Iron Man is still Iron Man despite undergoing a palette change. Octavius' transformation is a much more radical change than that, becoming an entirely different person (that's the whole point of the story, right?). But since you bring up Carol Danvers, I would point out that the image for her on the page for Ms. Marvel (which Carol Danvers redirects to) is an image of her as Ms. Marvel, while the image for Doctor Octopus (which Otto Octavius redirects to) is an image of him as Spider-Man. :::LoveWaffle (talk) 21:00, January 11, 2013 (UTC) ::::Because she's as "Captain Marvel" in the Captain Marvel desambig, the Ms. Marvel is dedicated to Ms. Marvel. If you want to can change the Spider-Man image in Doctor Octopus desambig using that explanation, you can do it. I still don't see how that can help with the profile pic. ::::I still don't see the point of putting a Doc Ock image in the profile pic, he's Spider-Man now, I don't see why does that need to live in the past. What about Eddie Brock being Toxin now? Thunderbolt Ross being Red Hulk? Betty Ross being She-Hulk? Pepper Potts being Rescue (when she was Rescue)? It doesn't make sense to let a look of the character which is possibly obsolete just because of the fear that people can't read. :::::--ADour, the ADour-incible ADour (talk) 21:15, January 11, 2013 (UTC) ::::::Because representing what the character is now isn't the purpose of a profile pic. That's the purpose of a history section. The purpose of a profile pic is to provide a picture that is representative, notable, and instantly recognizable. So no, Eddie Brock should not be Toxin now and Pepper Potts should not have been rescue. The Ross...es as the Red Hulks is understandable, at least for the General maybe not so for Betty, because the heft of Marvel's marketing, for the comics and other media, has been towards those characters as Red Hulks. I would also ask, if this is the reasoning for profile pics, why every deceased character is not represented by human remains (assuming they had a human anatomy and had remains). ::::::LoveWaffle (talk) 21:33, January 11, 2013 (UTC) :::::::No, a profile image must represent what the character is in the moment, also, the history section doesn't need specifically to have images. :::::::"because the heft of Marvel's marketing, for the comics and other media, has been towards those characters as Red Hulks." :::::::... :::::::Like Superior Spider-Man wasn't the big deal of Marvel in 2012/13... C'mon... I don't know from where this thing of "profile pictures must have the most recognizable image of a character" came up, but it just doesn't make sense. What about the new readers who are entering the world of comics and want to know more about the Superior Spider-Man they're reading? Seeing the image of Doc Ock "might turn people away". ::::::::--ADour, the ADour-incible ADour (talk) 21:44, January 11, 2013 (UTC) ::::::::I agree with ADour here. Profile pictures should be up to date. There's still plenty of pictures of Ock on this page to make it obvious enough that it's him, and actually reading the page should make it even more obvious. When he's out of Pete's body the picture will be changed to whatever he is then, and all this arguing will be pointless. Right now he is Spider-Man so he should be portrayed as Spider-Man. If we argued about how a character is best known, then Hank Pym's picture will be changed every day. Most logical solution is to go with what he is now. We have plenty of pictures in the rest of the page to display what he was in the past (not to mention the gallery). Andy Nominus (talk) 22:16, January 11, 2013 (UTC) No, a profile image must represent what the character is in the moment, also, the history section doesn't need specifically to have images. :So what you're saying now is that the history section does not need to accurately depict the history of the character. How can Doc Ock's history be accurately portrayed without an image of him as Spider-Man? Like Superior Spider-Man wasn't the big deal of Marvel in 2012/13 :Actually it's not. Marvel's big deal in 2012/2013 is promoting an almost absurd amount of movies that's likely to make them an almost ungodly amount of money, one of which becoming one of the highest-grossing films of all time and breaking a few legitimate records in the process. And it's clear that all of Marvel's efforts are going into promoting those films, which includes the Marvel NOW! re-launch (this is why Nick Fury was replaced by a character also named Nick Fury who is much closer to the design for Ultimate Nick Fury, the design used for the movies). :If Octavius as Peter Parker is promoted elsewhere, like the Rosses as the Red Hulks, then I could see it being his profile picture. If it has the staying power like the Red Hulks have, then I could see it as his profile picture. But it's currently and outlier and a transitory period in the character's almost 50-year history. I don't know from where this thing of "profile pictures must have the most recognizable image of a character" came up :Because that's the actual purpose of a profile picture, and that you don't know that invalidates your position on the subject. I don't see how you can argue for something you don't even know the purpose of. Actually, I don't even know how you don't know that this is the purpose of a profile picture since you are currently using it. This is why both pictures you have provided as a profile picture is that of Iron Man, representing yourself via your fondness for Iron Man, and not an up-to-date picture of yourself. :Unless that is actually what you look like. In that case, you've got a pretty good case on Marvel stealing your likeness. What about the new readers who are entering the world of comics and want to know more about the Superior Spider-Man they're reading? Seeing the image of Doc Ock "might turn people away". '' :I don't know, maybe we have a responsibility to show new readers who the character really is. And who the character is is the villainous Otto Octavius, genius supervillain and founder of the Sinister Six...all of which is important to understanding the most recent issue. And you still haven't answered the question - if representing the character as it is at this moment, why are deceased characters not represented by a corpse or remains of some sort? LoveWaffle (talk) 22:28, January 11, 2013 (UTC) ::Have you noticed how absurd you're becoming? ::"''So what you're saying now is that the history section does not need to accurately depict the history of the character. How can Doc Ock's history be accurately portrayed without an image of him as Spider-Man?" ::I'm implying what would happen if that idea of yours that his image must be that of Doc Ock. ::Actually, Marvel doesn't focus only in movies, as you should know. Some new titles such as Avengers Assemble, the new Avengers volume and every Marvel NOW! title were talked/are being talked about a lot. I don't know if you read many comicbook news websites, but you should realize that Superior Spider-Man was specifically one of the titles that attracted more the attention of the media. ::"Actually, I don't even know how you don't know that this is the purpose of a profile picture since you are currently using it. This is why both pictures you have provided as a profile picture is that of Iron Man, representing yourself via your fondness for Iron Man, and not an up-to-date picture of yourself." ::That is called an "avatar", an image someone can use in the web if they don't want to reveal your true identity, you should know that since you are currently using it. ::As long as I know you have to change the picture of your ID. Oh, wait, I had this look for over 20 years, I should keep this picture of me in my mid-30s even if I'm 100 years old! ::What if the readers want to know more about the new Superior Spider-Man status-quo? Tell me. ::Oh, and if your logic is going by the character's most recognized over time, we should put a image of fatty bucket-hair cut Doc Ock, and not the most recent one... Someone can be mislead because they see him with 8 tentacles instead of one, oh noes! ::Do you have a picture of the corpse of your grandma in the wall? When a character dies, the look that stays is that when its heart was still beating. ::Really, dude, re-read what you write, you're just making it worse for your side of the argument. :::--ADour, the ADour-incible ADour (talk) 23:02, January 11, 2013 (UTC)